INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Summary conviction courts have jurisdiction over proceedings within their territorial division.
SECTION WORDING
798 Every summary conviction court has jurisdiction to try, determine and adjudge proceedings to which this Part applies in the territorial division over which the person who constitutes that court has jurisdiction.
EXPLANATION
Section 798 of the Criminal Code of Canada is concerned with the jurisdiction of summary conviction courts in the country. This section specifies that such courts have the power to try, determine and adjudge proceedings that fall within the purview of Part XXVII of the Criminal Code, within the territorial division over which that court has jurisdiction. Part XXVII of the Criminal Code deals with summary conviction offences, which are considered less serious than indictable offences. Examples of such offences include disturbances, minor traffic violations, and certain types of theft. Summary conviction courts are lower courts that deal with such offences and have less severe penalties, ranging from monetary fines to brief periods of imprisonment. By conferring jurisdiction on summary conviction courts to deal with such offences, Section 798 of the Criminal Code seeks to ease the burden on higher courts that deal with more serious offences. It also ensures that justice is administered locally and expeditiously, in a manner that is accessible and affordable to all. Overall, Section 798 holds significant importance in the Canadian criminal justice system by enabling summary conviction courts to carry out their important role in administering justice at the local level.
COMMENTARY
Section 798 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that outlines the jurisdiction of summary conviction courts in the country. The section states that every summary conviction court has the power to try, determine, and adjudge proceedings that fall under the jurisdiction of this Part in the territorial division over which the person who constitutes that court has jurisdiction. The provision essentially means that any court that falls under the definition of a summary conviction court can hear and resolve cases that are brought before it within its jurisdictional boundaries. This provision is crucial as it helps to define the powers of these courts and promotes consistency in the application of the law. Summary conviction courts are a vital component of the Canadian criminal justice system, as they deal with a wide range of minor criminal offenses such as traffic violations, petty theft, and minor assaults. These courts are designed to handle less severe criminal offenses, and can impose lesser penalties such as fines, probation, and community service rather than incarceration. The jurisdictional boundaries of summary conviction courts are also well defined in the Criminal Code, and are usually limited to the geographical area where the court is located. This provision, therefore, helps to ensure that all minor criminal offenses within a specific territorial division are heard and resolved by the appropriate court. Another critical aspect of this provision is that it acknowledges the importance of regionalism in the Canadian criminal justice system. The territorial division over which the summary conviction court presides is a fundamental consideration in sentencing and ensuring that the offender is punished appropriately for the crime committed. Furthermore, this provision also helps to ensure that trial procedures in summary conviction courts are followed to the letter. By limiting the applications of Part XXVII of the Criminal Code to summary conviction courts, it ensures that the proceedings follow a streamlined procedure that is consistent throughout the country. This reduces the likelihood of errors and inconsistencies that can lead to appeals and retrials, increasing the efficiency of the criminal justice system. In conclusion, Section 798 of the Criminal Code of Canada plays a crucial role in defining the jurisdiction of summary conviction courts, and promoting consistency and efficiency in the Canadian criminal justice system. It acknowledges the importance of regionalism in the administration of justice and ensures that the criminal justice process is streamlined and consistent throughout the country. The provision serves as an essential guideline for the administration of justice in summary conviction courts, ensuring that all minor criminal offenses are heard and resolved by the appropriate court.
STRATEGY
Section 798 of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the jurisdiction of summary conviction courts to try and determine proceedings within their territorial division. This section lays the foundation for several strategic considerations when dealing with criminal proceedings in a summary conviction court. One potential strategic consideration is the selection of an appropriate summary conviction court. Territorial jurisdiction is a key consideration in seeking out the right court. Lawyers can advise their clients to consider selecting a court where they are familiar with the local customs, judicial attitudes, and community biases. Such knowledge could help them assert relevant defense strategies and help them gain a better understanding of the court proceedings. A second strategic consideration is to carefully analyze the case details and charges before deciding on a plea or trial. Defending clients charged with summary offenses requires that attorneys stay up-to-date on the latest changes to summary conviction laws. Legal practitioners should advise their clients not to plead guilty based on a simple reading of the charge, as factors such as age, mental health, and prior convictions can bear on the court's perception and subsequently impact sentencing outcomes. This could include exploring alternate pleadings or seeking the will of a judge in circumstances. Another strategy that can be employed is to seek out experienced legal counsel. Experienced lawyers can effectively guide their clients through the court proceedings by understanding all the ins and outs of court protocol and procedure, as well as drawing upon their expertise in analyzing the evidence, formulating effective legal arguments, and presenting mitigating factors to the court. Lawyers with years of experience, like those at Pieter Law, can provide invaluable guidance to their clients to help them navigate through the complexities of criminal proceedings. A fourth strategic consideration is to be aware of the punishments available for summary convictions. Maximum penalties vary, but typically range between six months imprisonment and a $5000 fine. Prosecutors will often seek maximum sentences, as they're mandated to do so by law, however, defense attorneys can negotiate with prosecutors, ensuring they receive the minimum sentence or better. Oftentimes, judges can be swayed by mitigating factors, described above, and be lenient on offenders. Finally, a strategic consideration should be to consider collateral consequences when accepting plea bargains. While it may be tempting to accept a plea offer to reduce the risk of punishment or trial, a plea can have serious consequences that may extend beyond criminal sentencing. For example, some summary convictions can impede a person's ability to travel, disqualify them from certain employment opportunities and potentially damage their reputation. Defendants should consider the long-term effects before accepting a plea bargain. In conclusion, Section 798 is a critical component of the Criminal Code of Canada that defines the jurisdiction of summary conviction courts. Lawyers must be strategic in their approach, analyzing all the nuances of the case and the legal system in general to get the best outcome for their client. Choosing the appropriate court, choosing the right plea strategy, seeking experienced legal counsel, analyzing sentencing recommendations, and considering collateral consequences are amongst the critical factors that need to be considered when defending an accused in a summary conviction court.